SUMMARY

This is the second part of a 2-part comparison between two of the best destroyers in the world. If you haven’t read the first part, check out the link below and then proceed to read this article.

ANTI-AIR WARFARE

This category examines the ability of the warships to shoot own hostile aircraft, missiles and other aerial threats from distances over 100 km from the ship to as close as 1 km from the ship. Ballistic missile defense capability isn’t given preference in the ratings.

ARLEIGH BURKE

The Burke has the ubiquitous Mk41 Universal Vertical Launching System with 96 VL cells (32 fore and 64 aft). This ensures a massive weapon load. In an ideal situation, 64 cells will be allocated for Anti-Air, 16 cells for Anti-Surface and 8 cells for Anti-Submarine duties. In the 72 cells for AAW, it usually carries 48 SM-2, 8 SM-6 and (16×4) 64 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) of which 4 missiles can be packed per launcher. A single Phalanx CIWS at the aft provides last-ditch defense against cruise missiles. This provides a powerful and layered AAW capability.

The aft VLS farm with 64 cells

Let us come to present day standards and consider only AAW capability which is the focus of this article. In the dedicated role, all 96 VLS cells will be filled with SAMs. The load out would typically be 16 SM-6, 48 SM-2, 16 SM-3 and 16×4 ESSM which makes a grand total of 144 missiles. This will enable the Burke to engage ballistic missiles at distances of over 1000 km, supersonic cruise missiles, and aircraft at distances of 350+ km using the SM-3 and SM-6 respectively.

The SM-2 forms the next line of defense and can engage cruise missiles and aircraft at 90 km and the latest versions have 160 km range. The ESSM with its 50km range forms the missile component of the Close in Weapons System (CIWS) and these 64 missiles are used to shoot down any missile or aircraft which has managed to bypass the primary layer. However, the SM-6 is effective at long ranges only when external assets like E-2D are used to engage missiles over the horizon by co-operative engagement.

Here we cannot just consider the number of missiles which are present on the ship. The number of missiles which can be simultaneously guided in multiple directions to shoot down incoming missiles is more important. This is essential while dealing with saturation missile attacks where 20-30 missiles approach the Burke from multiple directions. Hence in such a scenario, the Burke must be able to guide 30-40 SAMs simultaneously in order to intercept these threats.

This is, however, impossible using the SM-2 which features a semi-active radar seeker and requires constant illumination from the SPG-62 mechanically scanned fire control radars. This will be rectified in the future when ESSM Blk2 will feature active radar homing, but at present, the Burke has a limited capability when operating alone. It can operate to its full potential only when acting as a part of a larger networked carrier battle group (CBG). The Burke is, however, superior to the daring in the sheer number of missiles that are carried.

USS Vicksburg (CG-69), and the guided-missile destroyers USS Roosevelt (DDG-80), USS Carney (DDG-64) and USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) launch a coordinated volley of missiles during a Vandel Exercise (VANDALEX). The exercise is designed to intercept hostile missiles with the ship’s missiles. These type of coordinated and networked attacks are the main strength of this class.

DARING

The Type-45 is designed from the onset for the sole purpose of shooting down anything in the sky that is hostile. It uses a combination of Aster-15/30 SAMs to engage aerial threats at long ranges. 2 x Phalanx CIWS are used as the last line of defense against missiles. The Aster-15/30 is a family of modular missiles which use the similar terminal stages and the only difference between them is the size of their booster stage.

The Aster-15 is the medium range variant and has a smaller booster which gives it an official range of 35+ km. However, judging from the size of the missile, booster and analyzing between the lines, it is safe to estimate that its actual range is somewhere around 50 km. Similarly, the Aster-30 is said to have a 120+ km range ad it is safe to assume that the actual range is around 150 km. These missiles are extremely fast and have a terminal velocity of Mach 3-4.5 . Each destroyer has 48 A50 VLS cells to accommodate a total of 48 Aster missiles in any combination.

The 6 VLS modules contain 8 A50 cells each

It is interesting to note that all 48 Asters onboard are designed to be one-shot, one-kill systems. This means that only 1 SAM will be fired to intercept an incoming aerial target, and a total of 48 targets can be intercepted successfully. It is not known to what extent these claims are true, but it is safe to assume it is valid against subsonic targets as supersonic ones will need more than one SAM to be successfully intercepted. The Burke loses out in this area as USN policy calls for a minimum of 2 SM-2 SAMs to be fired against each incoming target for successful interception.

In the future, the Type-45s will receive the CAMM Sea Ceptor SAM, which will be an ESSM Blk2 equivalent. 4 such missiles can be fitted in every A50 cell and will substantially increase the anti-missile capability of these destroyers.

A torpedo is fired from the Mk-32 triple torpedo tubes. A magazine for over 20 torpedoes is present under the deck.

The Burke has excellent and long-range ASW capability and its bow houses one of the largest sonars on a contemporary warship. It has a towed array sonar as well which gives it a significant advantage in detecting submarines. The Mk41 VLS of the Burke can be equipped with the vertically launched RUM-139 ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rocket) which delivers a lightweight torpedo up to 20 km away and allows it to engage submarines before the ship itself can be engaged. The Burke also has 2 triple 324 mm torpedo tubes for launching lightweight torpedoes. But the most important ASW asset is the 2 x Seahawk ASW helicopters it embarks in its hangar.

This is one aspect where the Daring lags behind the Burke as it contains a defensive ASW suite. It has an MFS-7000 bow mounted sonar but no torpedo tubes or towed array sonar. It depends on its single embarked Merlin or 2 Lynx for ASW purposes, contrary to the belief that only 1 helicopter can be embarked. It is well within the policy of the RN as they use only their Type 23 frigates for ASW. The 2 Lynx, if carried will be extremely effective in an ASW operation. If the necessity arises, torpedo tubes can theoretically be fitted on the Type-45s during a minor refit.

2 Lynx ASW helicopters on board HMS Dauntless

RATINGS: Burke gets 10 points for Anti-submarine warfare

Type-45 gets 4 points for Anti-submarine warfare

MISCELLANEOUS

ARLEIGH BURKE

The Burkes were designed for the sole purpose of carrying a massive amount of weaponry and hence less emphasis was placed on crew comfort and it lacks additional space for mission specific equipment.

It has a large crew requirement of 298 which makes accommodation pretty cramped compared to its British counterpart.

The 2 helicopter hangars can accommodate 2 Seahawk multi-role helicopters for ASW and utility missions. This is an improvement over the Flight I which lacked a hangar.

The ship’s vital spaces are armoured around vital combat systems and machinery spaces by the use of spaced steel armour and Kevlar. This makes it survivable in combat and reduces the damage inflicted by anti-ship missile hits.

The Daring is one of the most high-tech warships in service and requires a crew of only 189 due to the high degree of automation in many areas which enables 1 sailor to perform the duties of 2.

It also has excellent crew comfort and habitability which can prove to be a big deal during long deployments far away from home. Being similar in size to the Burke and needing 120 fewer personnel frees up a lot of space inside.

It has the capability to house up to 60 Royal Marines for extended periods, which is an invaluable asset in modern warfare. Its Merlin helicopter can carry more than twice the number of troops (30+) compared 2 S-70 helicopters on the Burke which can carry 15 troops each. This again is an advantage in special ops.

The large deck can handle a Chinook which is very useful again since the RN doesn’t have a large fleet of aircraft/helicopter carriers like the USN and have to get the most out of what they have.

RATINGS: Burke gets 6 points for crew comfort and habitability.

Type-45 gets 10 points for crew comfort and habitability.

PHOTO GALLERY

ARLEIGH BURKE

DARING

CONCLUSION

CATEGORY

ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS

DARING CLASS

DESIGN

9

10

PROPULSION

7

10

RADAR

7

10

ANTI-AIR WARFARE

10+9+10

9+10+6

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

10

4

ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE

10

5

COMFORT & HABITABILITY

6

10

TOTAL

78

74

It’s obvious that the Type-45 would have scored less when compared to the Burke if you consider anti-submarine and land attack capability. But it was designed as a single role ship from the outset. Early reports suggest that it could have had 72 VLS for Aster SAMs if the VLS cells were compactly placed like on the Burke. There are rumors that it can be upgraded with the 12 new A70 VLS in front of its existing 48 A50 cells, which has a similar deck footprint and will enable it to launch Tomahawk/Scalp cruise missiles which would take near the level of Burke in capabilities.

We can conclude by saying that the Type-45 is better equipped to deal with modern aerial threats when compared to Burke. It can engage more targets simultaneously and its AESA radars+Aster SAM combination heavily tilt the result in its favour. However, the Burke is an all-rounder which wins in surface and anti-submarine warfare. Finally, when it comes to habitability and crew comfort, the Type-45 is more like a cruise ship modified into a warship and this plays a big role during long deployments which stretch up to 6 months. If I had to pick one to fight in World War III, then Arleigh Burke would top my list as its versatility and all-round performance is unmatched.

wonderful article sir. I have a few things to ask.
1) How would IN’s Kolkata and Vishakhapatnam class destroyers fare against the Daring class? is it safe to presume that a Brahmos and Barak 8 equipped INS Kolkata packs a bigger punch than Daring at much cheaper prices?
2) Requesting an article on Shivalik class frigates and follow on. Shivaliks are comparable to destroyers in tonnage and IN plans to build a lot more of them than the Kolkata destroyers
3) Request an article on Kamorta class corvettes. while Kolkata class destroyers have grabbed all headlines Kamorta isn’t talked about as much and IN plans to have them in large numbers.

The statement that the Daring class is “designed to shoot down anything in the sky that is hostile” is erroneous on the face of it. Unlike Burke class destroyers Daring has no demonstrated proven abm systems and won’t have one, if ever, for a least a decade.
More importantly, any direct comparison between Daring and Burke is not a real comparison because Daring is not designed to do what Burke can do. Quite frankly, Daring Is designed for the last war and Burke is designed for the next one.

“Daring Is designed for the last war and Burke is designed for the next one.”

You have completely missed the point about the the Burke only being able to guide a limited number of its missiles at once. The Daring can control far more. I’d say your statement was totally the wrong way round! ABM capability could easily be added to Daring.

One other comment about the article is that there is no mention about sea keeping and stability, a most vital component in the effectiveness of the ships systems and weapons. I suspect the Daring would win on that front. On the other hand I suspect the Burke may be able to sustain more damage.

I enjoyed reading the article but I feel it was bias in some cases for a number of reasons;

It was declared as an anti-air comparison between two anti-air ships, yet the Daring lost a lot of points on Submarine warfare and land-attack capability. I will be frank, this should not have even been rated at all, the Daring is literally an anti-air destroyer and in that role it is the best in the world by a long shot.

If we want to bring something down on the water or land, we use a submarine or as stated we will be using the Type 26 in the future.

Removing the non air related combat statistics we have Burke at 58 points with the Daring at 65 which seems more realistic concerning air combat.

Further though, I would argue you were very generous in the comparison on Radar for the Burke. As you covered, the Burke would be hopeless in saturation if were comparing just one ship to the other. It relies on terminal guidance from a few illumination meaning it can only control a few missiles which is further an issue because as you covered they fire two missles per target.

So essentially in an environment where a Burke is being attacked or even a strike force of burkes your looking at likely less cover than a SINGLE Type 45. Which can, as you oultined fire nearly its full complement of missles which all have seekers at once.

The aster is also more agile and faster than the standard and is being covered by the far superior radar. Which has greater range, tracks far more targets and since it is higher, can see sea skimmers before it is too late. The burke is basically dead against saturation from anti-ship missles and skimmers.

So I would rate the Radar of the Burke maybe a 4 and the Daring a 10.

Let us create a mock engagement;

The first mock fight has both ships in the middle of the ocean, there are 100 targets, 10 sea skimmers and 90 attack aircraft coming in to attack the ships in question.

What can the Burke do? It has only so much coverage form its radar which has only a range of about 40 km to sea skimmers, I am not sure if it can zero in on stealthy targets but let us ASSUME this old sea dog can track the same as the Daring it cannot detect said targets as far. It only has seconds before objects travelling mach 3 (some anti ship missiles do like Brahmos) cross that 40 km and that is the time the radar picks it up. That gives them 40-50 seconds maybe more to detect the missiles, launch their own, which is only a few at a time possible due to the limitations of the radar and so the ship is sunk.

Those 10 missiles would finish off a few Burke class yet one Daring can release almost its full load of missles if it needed to an conquer 30+ such threats long before the Burke even knows those cruise missles are coming.

But what of the flying aircraft coming in? The burke has the same problem as before. It also uses missiles that have a higher escape range because they are slower than the Aster and less agile. With air launched gaining in range and power the speed is everything because fast jets can turn around if they get locked on and those illuminators on the burke are going to be like a warning siren.

Again though, the Burke will get saturated. Even in a full air to air loadout it is going to run out of missiles (2 fired at a time) against just 40 targets if it was carrying 80 air to air missiles against aircraft at long range. That is assuming it did only fire 2 at a time, let us face it, those missiles are relatively old, if faced against modern planes with Stealth, modern ECM and countermeasures and high agility they may consider more shots.

So in this engagement, The Daring has 48 Asters, over 30 controlled at once, that means 48 targets can be destroyed with less missles than the Burke. And these missles are newer, faster and as I said before followed the guidance of a superior radar. The burke may end up spitting out dozens of missles, they may miss or be outrun and will likely struggle with stealthy targets as such technology has been improved and re-designed in more modern craft and missles since the burkes hayday in the 80’s.

I will admit though that the Burke having close-in defense missiles is a bonus. The Phalanx is a sturdy system but faster missiles will make the requirement for other anti-missle defenses greater as time goes on.

So all in all, I would rate the Burke closer to a 40-50 and the Daring 70-80. Points cannot be justified for how vulnerable the burke is when up against larger numbers of targets though.

I will also write a piece on advancements. Research suggests that the Burke is getting less and less upgrades due to cuts in the military and space on the ship itself is running out. Its engine and generators and coolers and what not can only fit so many more additions meanwhile the Daring has a lot of free space for more cells to be placed, either anti-missle or more Aster pods depending on requirements she could have a total of 72 Aster missles on-board in a full war loadout with extra cells.

Also do not forget, she uses an electronic propulsion system, a lot of juice in electricity is provided which means unlike the Burke the Daring can be more compared to the Zumwalt in the fact they both could potentially provide juice for advanced systems like lasers and rail guns. The burke has no such future possibility.

In conclusion, just like the dreadnoughts were top of the line in their day and age, the Burke was at the top of the ladder in the past but technology has passed it by. For a post cold war era design and vessel she does well and I cannot deny her amazing mutli-role capability that the Daring does not have, e.g. extensive land attack, submarine etc capabilities. But when it comes to a comparison of air, it is like comparing an F-22 to a F-14 or a Centurion to an M1A2 Abrams tank.

Unfortunately it does not look good for the US navy, it has a lot of old post cold war ships especially the Burke and the fact they built so many likely makes the cost of a newer model like the Zumwalt un-affordable which is why it was canceled. They will be stuck with this 80’s vessel until 2030-2040, and I can only hope no major wars start then but if it does, America has European allies with ships like the Type 45 that will create a perfect team of air defense and multi-target functionality. The more Modern Type 45 Destroyers and Astute class submarines beside the Burkes and the Virginias.

Flight 3 Burkes will have a new AESA radar. Additionally the SM-6 interceptor (370km range) is in production which has its own seeker and therefore will not be handicapped by a lack of shipboard radars.

They will have a new AESA radar and it will be on par with the SAMSON radar, but if you look at the labelled pictures in Part 1, the 45s SAMSON radar is set at a height approximately twice the height of the Burke’s AMDR.

This gives the 45s a much greater detection range, especially regarding sea skimming missiles, which with regard to BrahMos missiles, possibly the single greatest threat to ships, allows the 45s to endure a much greater missile saturation attack.

Subsequently, whilst an Raleigh Burke “if it goes one-on-one with a Russian frigate or Indian destroyer carrying 16 BrahMos, it’s not returning home” [Defencyclopedia], a Type 45 should, admittedly so will it’s opponent due to the lack of sufficient offensive weaponry.

BUT we will still have a ship, and if it was a fleet escort, we will still have a fleet.

lets create a situation where a Nimitz has three Burkes and a Los Angeles escorting it versus a Queen Elizabeth with two Type 45’s a Type 26 and an Astute, the Burkes escorting the Nimitz basically do everything, they cover her from air attack, submarine threat, and do the shore bombardment with 16 Tomahawks per Burke and another 16 (to be generous) on the Los Angeles, 16×4=64 so that’s 64 missiles for the shore bombardment followed by the 127mm main guns, and the F/A-18 Hornets on the Nimitz, while on the other hand, the Queen Elizabeth’s batttle group has 16 Tomahawks on the Type 26 and 16 on the Astute fora total of 32 missiles which is half of what the USN is bringing, aside from that, the 114mm guns won’t be used for surface warfare, and the F-35B’s on the Queen Elizabeth are outmatched by the sheer number of the Nimitz’s F/A-18’s, so who has a better chance of laying waste to Argentina for the Falklands?

I think your response to the articles and their conclusion was well thought out, but there is a problem which you don’t address in your conclusion. The fact is that the RN has far too few Type 45s, only six. When you consider how many will have to be deployed to escort the new aircraft carriers and how many will be in refit at any one time, that is far too few. I agree that the Type 45 is very capable for the role it was designed for, but for a navy like the UKs we need at least double the ships we have.

The benefit the USN has is that it’s likely opponents won’t have anything as capable as the AB class for some time. The Russians really are using ships built before the collapse of the Berlin wall. The Chinese either have old Russian ships or are building ships which aren’t yet at the USN’s standard, and who else does that leave. The ships of the USN are more than capable of handling the threats of the present and the near to middle future.

As for the cost of replacement, I think again that the ultra revolutionary designs which have been deemed to costly are at present a step too far. What the USN should be looking at is indeed a Daring+ type ship, not something that so far ahead of every possible opponent. After all, to take your example of the dreadnoughts, the designs went in leaps and bounds because of an arms race. It wasn’t just because navies like the RN decide to go for bigger and better for the sake of it.

Doesn’t the SM-2 used by Burke have a mid-course update function that allows the SPY-1D to provide tracking for multiple SM-2 missile “in flight” with the three illuminator reserved for just the final moments of terminal engagement?

I thought that was the whole point of the AEGIS system, to handle saturation attacks: fire dozens of missiles into the air in sequence, then time share the intercepts every few seconds with the illuminators, thus mitigating the problems of having only three.

I am not sure if that is true but the problem is, you do not want to have to rely on the limited illuminators at all. It makes the whole situation more complicated and forces missles to wait for the cycle that is not required for missles with seekers.

It is a huge flaw in the dated hardware but as KEN said, that should not be a problem. At the moment the AESA radar is not in play and the SM-6 has only recently gone into full production. I think the US only has around 1-200 of the things.

But once they have those, they may be closer to matching the capabilities of the Type-45. Course by the time all the Burkes are kitted out I would not be surprised if the Type-45 and other Euro ships of the next generation have energy weapons. The type-45’s electrical drives should allow that

Trixbat, you are absolutely correct. That is how AEGIS works. This statement in the article: “…This is however impossible using the SM-2 which features a semi-active radar seeker and requires constant illumination from the SPG-62 mechanically scanned fire control radars.” is incorrect. I’ve never been able to find good information on just how many targets AEGIS can engage at once, the standard information is “multiple simultaneous targets”, and while I’m prepared to believe Daring can engage more, this idea that Aegis is somehow pathetic when it comes to saturation attacks baffles me.

I am not sure if that is true but the problem is, you do not want to have to rely on the limited illuminators at all. It makes the whole situation more complicated and forces missles to wait for the cycle that is not required for missles with seekers.

It is a huge flaw in the dated hardware but as KEN said, that should not be a problem. At the moment the AESA radar is not in play and the SM-6 has only recently gone into full production. I think the US only has around 1-200 of the things.

But once they have those, they may be closer to matching the capabilities of the Type-45. Course by the time all the Burkes are kitted out I would not be surprised if the Type-45 and other Euro ships of the next generation have energy weapons. The type-45’s electrical drives should allow that.

So all in all, the Type 45 does not deserve the 74 points.
Is like a Formula 1 car with a 50cc engine!
Yes, there is the SAMPSON radar but to use it, the ship engines must stop and also shut down the S1850M radar.
There is the Asfer 30 missile with +120km range but not sufficient electricity for the launch computer.
The Typre 45 is just totally not reliable, all show and no go.
Remember HMS Hood, all 47,000 ton and sunk by one shell?

Just for comparison,
the Arleigh Burke class has a total electric output of 79,000 kw
the Type 45 class has a total electric output of 45,000 kw

The problem with blackout onboard the Type 45 is already known within the Navy for a few years.
To quote Rear Admiral Chris Parry,
“It’s rather like buying a high-priced television to watch your favorite football team but because you don’t have secure power supplies, the power goes off about every 10 minutes.

I personally will not give the Type 45 10 for design and 10 for propulsion.

Thanks for the link and the information. I wasn’t aware of these engine related troubles that the Type-45 is facing. Why didn’t they know this beforehand ? It should have been obvious that the power generated is insufficient while designing the ship itself.

You may as well answer yourself, after all you are suppose to be expert in this subject.
“I’m pretty sure the Royal Navy wouldn’t acquire a destroyer which doesn’t have enough power to run all the systems.”

I have quite a bit of knowledge but I do not know everything. Sometimes people point out and bring to my notice things which I wasn’t aware of. Just wanted your opinion on the topic, so I asked. Will have to do a bit more research regarding the power plant issue as this is a serious drawback for the RN.

Just a few pointers, you may have missed the article back in November covering HMS Dauntless’s ABM trials off the coast of Scotland, where it tracked an ICBM proxy missile (Terrier-Orion) with enough accuracy for a Burke (USS Ross) to use the data to shoot it down while outside the atmosphere.

The engine issues were known for a while and a re-fit plan was in place well before said article came out, upgrading the existing diesels and adding one or two more is the general plan. It doesnt help either that the WR-21 Gas Turbines are brand new engines. every other GT powering an RN ship has come from aviation, such as the Tyne, Olympus and Spey, and said design had therefore had plenty of time to mature. So it isnt known how well those engines will hold up long-term in a working enviroment. Almost everything about the 45 is new, apart from the guns (the 45 turret is new though). Teething troubles will be present, especially in the first 3 Batch 1s, Daring, Dauntless and Diamond.

I’d like to see an article on The Toconderoga Class Cruiser vs The T-23 “Duke Class” Frigate. Also maybe one on the new Royal Navy and US navy carriers although I know the likely result of that article. Still would be cool to read. Loved the article BTW.

The latest Flight 2A and the future Flight III versions of Burke must be massively superior to Daring class . Daring is an overpriced vessel with very limited capabilities.. Their highly praised Sampson radar is capable of tracking 800 targets but only 48 missiles to engage them?? 48 French made Aster missiles?? this must be a joke …

The U.K. has a top five economy a GDP of almost 3 Trillion yet has gutted its military and under spends considerably on its defense. That has nothing to do with the US being bigger. Yes our navy has over 330,000 sailors and the U.K. only has 33,000. Our economy is not 10x larger than the UK.

The U.K. Might as well give up on pretending to be serious about defense. Hell, Saudis Arabia spends 88billion on defense and the U.K. Spends 56 billion. Yet Saudi’s GDP is only 650 Billion. It’s about priorities and the U.K. Has made a conscious decision to disarm over the last 8 to 10 years.

Frankly the uk only has 15 operational Frigates and Destroyers today and has had no naval fighter aviation since 2010 and no naval surveillance aircraft since retiring the Nimrods in 2011. So with the few ships you have they have limited eyes and air support and can conduct limited missions given the need of the Frigates to protect the destroyers. So there is no sending the frigates out as surface action groups to defend the UKs missle boats especially since there are no Nimrods to help identify a clear path for them to sortie.

“Their highly praised Sampson radar is capable of tracking 800 targets but only 48 missiles to engage them?? 48 French made Aster missiles?? this must be a joke …”

They do not need more missiles. The sheer fear of knowing that you are being tracked with ease by a system like the Sampson acts as a deterrent. Also, better 48 missiles that you can fire essentially at the same time, one per target than be on the Burke which until recently had no option for active missiles and according to this article, would fire 2 of its missiles per target.

The Burke does not carry “all” anti-air missiles anyway. It packs its cells with cruise missiles. A realistic comparison between the two would leave the Type-45 the premier air to air Destroyer in the world by a large margin, its power problems withstanding which will not be an issue once new generators are put in. New technology does have teething issues, but its new, the US’ JSF and F-22 programs being obvious examples on the other side of the pond.

A better comparison for the Type-45 would be to the Zumwalt class of ships. The Burke is a dinosaur that would be relatively helpless against any large scale attack.

@Stephen

“The US is how many times bigger then the UK? Of course they can afford better ships.”

You would think so, but funnily enough it is not all about money, it is a case of research and development, other resources and of course, whether or not your arms companies respect you. BAE systems delivers the UK exceptional weapon systems, the likes of which the US does not have access to. Hence why it relies on its old Burke class of ships. As I said before, if this is a comparison of air to air load-out, your essentially comparing the post cold war era Burke design to a modern design. It is like comparing an F-15 or older to the F-22.

BAE actually builds better systems for the American services than British. The powering of the type 45 has several issues which require complete refit. As for size Britian’s economy is also 3 Trillion and under spends on their defense by half. The US is only 5 times larger yet supports an armed force ten times the size. Not to mention all the R&D and cost the US spends that are of benefit to allies like Britian. So in many ways we are not asking Britian to spend over their weight but at least up to their weight and provide for their defense.

Britian made the decision to gut its forces and underspend for the last decade and rely on the Us to give it cover. Well it’s time the uk starts being responsible again and bite the bullet to recapitalize its self and not just fund capital programs but the operating side of the ledger too and restore their forces that have absolutely decimated.

It would be nice to see some estimates on cost included in these comparisons. Not just the actual cost of a Daring vs one of the latest Arleigh Burkes, but also some cost estimates on the Burke assuming only 6 were ever made, development costs included.

A few observations, the engine issue has been mentioned and is gradually being addressed under Project Napier at a cost of £280m, which some believe has come from the Type 26 frigate programme and is why that is now delayed.

In recent testimony before a Defence Select Committee, it was revealed that there is nothing wrong with the engines (WR21) themselves, they work exactly to the specification that the MoD requested, they were designed to ‘gracefully degrade’ when used in warm weather, however when used in warm water and warm air, they ‘degrade catastrophically’.

Also, regarding the large bunk areas on the T45, a friend on mine who served on them off Libya said they hated it. As they are undermanned, off watch you don’t necessarily have anybody to sit and chat with, so it makes it quite an anti-social environment when compared with cramming people together and forming the bonds that ensue from close living.

Lot’s of clever back and forth here. Having served as an officer aboard an Aegis cruiser and having worked closely with the British Navy I would say I am delighted the Brits have put such fine ships to sea. I have been on British subs a and destroyers. There is no closer military relationship than the UK and US. Better UK ships will help the US and visa-versa.

A couple of points to hopefully aid the conversation – yes, the Burke’s can have many missiles in the air and control them mid-flight. Yes, the terminal illuminators would need to be scheduled by the Aegis for the last moments of flight (see Janes). Sea keeping on even the top heavy Aegis cruisers was never an issue – lots of time spent floating off Alaska in terrible seas – always ready to shoot though. Not sure what we are looking for as far a sea-keeping comments. Lots of all around kick-ass on the Burke’s/Aegis. I had always wished for more small boat protection when we were floating around the Persian Gulf to engage more fiberglass boats with Evenrude engines – not more terminal radars. Bushmasters seem nice but I would have traded a Seahawk helicopter for an Apache if asked.

As an ex RN AAWO who worked in the Type 45 Combat System Design Team for 4.5 years, I enjoyed reading your comparison articles. Regarding power supply issues, it is my understanding that the enhancement programme has worked. I do think you may have underestimated the short range performance of the Aster 15 in terms of assessing the CIWS capability. There are also some other points that I cannot talk about! In support of Bob Getler’s comments, small boat protection was something that concentrated our minds and the EO/IR and visual control capabilities are quite reasonable.

Globalmilitaryobserver@ Burke’s are the best allround destroyers around at the moment….and the USN is quite happy to keep improving them, and building more of them, because the ‘Burkes’ are tried and tested. The Arleigh Burke’s are multi-mission ships. They can do anti-sub, anti-air, ABM, anti-satellite, gunfire support, carry anti-ship missiles, and launch Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The Daring’s are specialized anti-aircraft destroyers with only limited capability in other areas.
The big difference is that the Burke’s have been in service for more than 20 years and continually improved while the Daring’s haven’t had that chance yet. And remember , western navies decided to integrate the AEGIS system including Australia !

”The Burke is a dinosaur that would be relatively helpless against any large scale attack”

Quite a silly assumption really… Magazines of 48 missiles or so are not going to permit a protracted or saturation defense. Burke carries 90-96 SM-2s.

Type 45 is not in the same league as the Burke/ Ticonderoga who were designed to engage enemy with hundreds of missiles in a coordinated strike.
The Aegis system was designed to counter just such a threat. That’s why a Ticonderoga flight 1 had 120 missiles and a rate of fire of one per second. If you can exhaust 120 SM-2 missiles in two minutes, how long until Daring’s 48 missile magazines are empty?

When comparing these two ships, it mostly comes down to the much larger magazine of the Arleigh Burke, along with the greater missile range ! Combined this is an advantage much greater then that of the Type 45’s Sampson radar .

With AEGIS the radar comparisons become nonsense. Integrated multi-ship, satellite, AWACS and other intel sources provide the Burkes’ commander with a combat situational display the type 45’s commander could only dream of. The massive imbalance of intel capability would leave the type 45 in a very poor position, unless the two met in a totally isolated position where the whole US satellite network and naval force was utterly compromised.
Warfare is not a solo performance but rather a huge team effort.
Sorry, UK but a handful of ship’s do not make a navy.

With the exception of CEC, the T45 has all the features mentioned above as standard. Moreover, as I understand it, the Link 16 implementation works better than that of the USN. There is more to the ‘special relationship’ than you know!